To Like Or Not To Love. That Is The Question

 

A comedian once joked that he loved all of his kids, but there was a couple he just didn’t like. As with all good comedy, the hyperbole is often grounded in truth. To love does not always mean you have to like.

Today relationships seem more littered with eggshells than honesty. Any parent raising children can acknowledge that our love is unconditional, but our children can have behavioral cycles that are just plain unlikable. Parents can explain the reasons we don’t like the child right now, and guide them toward the path of change.

But the modern counselor will tell you to dislike, to critique, and to admonish is to hate. All negativity is to be muted in an all embracing malleable sponge that squishes every action into a mush of acceptability. Defining love as never challenging, never exposing, and never exacting, the new society now is at loss to understand why the new generation of young adults are emotionally paralyzed at the slightest hint of adversity, never acknowledging that they have been programmed to think, if they are not liked, they are not loved but hated.

Ah, then there is the Christian whose words of rebuke are not the loving words of Jesus Christ. The same Christ who fashioned a whip to chase money-changers out of the Temple calling them thieves. He called people liars, hypocrites, dull of wit, slow of heart, children of Satan, and the list goes.

There were lots of people on this earth Christ didn’t like but he loved them all enough to die on cross for them. Christ didn’t accept every act of every person and neither should I. My faith demands that I love all humankind, but I don’t have to like you.

-Andy Torbett

Advertisements

The First Against the First: Pivot Point

 

The widespread ignorance to the proper application of the First Amendment in this Republic has made it increasingly vulnerable to those who wish to eradicate its protections. Many Conservative activists are shamefully negligent in their constant rants of perceived infringements to Free Speech. More often than not, the “transgression” is really nothing more than a misunderstanding of whose First reigns supreme, where and when.

The pivot point is found in understanding to Whom or What is the First’s protections weighted in the Where the Whom is found. In the public arena, the First is weighted towards the individual. In the private arena, the First pivots its weight towards the private groups, entities, places of worship, and dwellings of private individuals.

Recently, this writer read a social media post of an individual bewailing the violation of their First because the private social media group, a gun owner group, had curtailed posts that were in violation of the group’s standards. But here, the First’s protections for private group outweigh the First of the individual. The private group can exercise their First to limit the First of an individual whose speech compromises the standards of their group.

Similarly, it is not a violation of the First for an entity, whose purpose is to raise funds for specific purpose under specific guidelines, to regulate the speech of those, who are members, when they are speaking under the banner of said entity to prevent a violation of the laws that govern them. In another instance, an individual can mock and ridicule the beliefs of a Religious organization in the public space but to go into the The First Church of the Debonair Deacon and present your disdain for edicts of the parish will probably earn you the “left foot” of fellowship, which is well within the First of the Church to toss your heathen backside out the door.

It is imperative that we realize that the Left is constantly looking for leverage into organizations protected by the First. Mismanagement of the protest of perceived violations of the First runs the risk of establishing a precedent that will create a chink in the armor that protects our Natural Born Right to Free Speech. Knowledge is power, yet through ignorance, we cede that power.

By Andy Torbett

The First Against the First: Behold, Ignorance

 

As fundamental as it may seem to our Republic, the ideals protected by the First Amendment are a topic of much confusion. The when, where, why, and how of Free Speech has become more about political leverage than the protection of a Natural Born Right. The blurred lines of defense, perhaps by intent, is a study in ignorance shocking to behold.

There is a line of transition between the public sector and private sector. All speech, devoid of physical violence, is protected by the First in the public arena. Still, private entities have the right to curtail speech, which violate the charters, statements of faith, and rules which govern them.

Through ignorance, we have now turned the protections of Free Speech on its head. Powerful forces on the Left, under the guise of tolerance, are steadily pushing to eliminate free speech in the public space. Some on the Right, in their zeal to defend the tenets of the Constitution, have challenged the rights of private entities to curtail speech, unwittingly opening the doors for the Left to attack private groups.

Private groups have the right to hold to beliefs or rules that guide or govern them. Some groups that have purposed to be apolitical have laws that govern such. It is not a violation of the First for those groups to prohibit certain speech which violates their charters or statements of faith; in fact, the First protects their right to do so.

Not only does the First Amendment hold the right of expression for the individual supreme in public, it also affords the right of private individuals and groups to protect their standards and beliefs. The Left is working to remove all protections of Free Speech. Through ignorance, the Right is helping them.

Inoculated

 

We could wait for the dust to settle, but the frenzy never seems to lessen. The tension has ratcheted far beyond hyper to that screeching ripping sound right before everything snaps. Hour upon hour the American people are treated to an incessant volley of insults, hyperbole, and unhinged smears against this Nation, it’s people, and it’s President.

Should this be allowed? Can they attack the American people in this way? Yes, of course! The First Amendment’s strength is it’s ability to protect the speech you don’t want to hear.

While the media is protected by the First Amendment, the media is not the embodiment of the First Amendment. The Rights of Free Speech and Freedom of the Press are not enshrined in and exclusive to the mainstream media. Despite what liberal and conservative pundits alike opine, it is not an infringement of Free Speech to challenge the validity of the old line media as trustworthy news sources.

The President has done what most Republicans have failed to do and that is to push back against the dishonest media. Most Republicans have spent their entire political career cowering before the media and, like breath of fresh air, this President has come into office and done what every politician promises to do, fight for the people. A grim sense of satisfaction has swept the nation as they watch a bloodied tyrant flailing foolishly at a studied pugilist, who is giving the old despot his due.

President Trump has exposed for the Nation what he has known all along. The old line media is a failing commodity that has not placed a quality product on the market for some time. Were it not for forced viewing in airports and, sadly, validation by the White House, the old line media would barely make a ratings blip.

This is the irony. For all his bluster, Trump still validates these failed media institutions by allowing them a seat in the White House Press Corps. The negative attitudes, insults, and disdain of the American people are emboldened by the revered status a place in the Executive press room affords.

The First Amendment does not grant the media immunity from the Free Market. Free Speech does not or should not keep you impervious to the non-violent repercussions of said Free Speech. Yet, the established wisdom of today would have us believe that the old guard media are icons which have been inoculated against the demands of the consumer and innovation, therefore, cannot be changed. Will Free Speech really die with the demise of these rotting corpse, which are the media dinosaurs?

I think not. New and fresh voices are sounding an honest and clear call, a clarion that deserves recognition. Is it time for the White House to embrace this changing of the guard fully?

If the President truly believes that the dinosaur media is a failed, aging, outdated product that does not serve the people, then at the very least he must allow for new and fresh competition within the Press Corps. Can the President kick a news group out of the Press room? Why Not?!

Let the Free Market, the consumer, decide who their news source is. The White House should stop validating those news institutions who constantly disparage and attack the very fabric of our Nation, it’s people. They have the Freedom to do so, yes, but it is the President’s job to protect the interests of the people and the information highway is not a one horse carriage anymore.

-Andy Torbett